EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A collection law firm, one of its attorneys, and a debt buying entity are facing a class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Pennsylvania state law over garnishments that were made related to decades-old default judgments that the plaintiffs claimed they had no knowledge of and that the defendants allegedly lacked the documents required to substantiate ownership and existence of the debts.
The background: The complaint includes claims from three plaintiffs, each of whom had money in their bank accounts garnished by the defendants. Each of the garnishments were tied to judgments that were obtained at least 20 years ago. According to the complaint, none of the plaintiffs knew that lawsuits were filed against them, or that judgments had been obtained, until their accounts were garnished.
- In one of the cases, the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time that the summons and complaint were allegedly served on him at an address in Pennsylvania back in 2004.
- In each of the three cases, the default judgments were vacated and the defendant returned the funds that were garnished.
- According to the complaint, the defendants lacked many of the original documents that could verify the existence and details of the debts.
- Each of the plaintiffs contacted a legal aid organization, which sought to obtain more information about the debts and helped the plaintiffs vacate their judgments.
- In one case, a defendant agreed to vacate a judgment if the plaintiff would sign an agreement releasing any claims against the defendant.
- In each of the cases cited in the complaint, the amount of the debt had more than doubled from the original amount due to the interest that had accrued on them.
- The defendant allegedly purchased each of the judgments from another debt buyer, which had been holding the default judgments for more than a decade without making any attempt to collect on them, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendants of violating:
- Section 1692f of the FDCPA by failing to send any notice to the plaintiffs prior to filing writs of execution, pursuing collection efforts after the debts had been disputed, executing on invalid judgments, and executing on judgments without engaging in a meaningful review, among other claims.
- Section 1692g of the FDCPA by failing to send any notices to the plaintiffs.
- Section 1692e of the FDCPA by misrepresenting the validity of the debts to members of the class.
- The complaint seeks to create a class including anyone against whom the defendants attempted to collect debts in the name of the defendant related to default judgments.
